Eloquence

Learn more about this page

I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list s("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old contents are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Older versions" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to Feb 2003. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to March 2003. --Eloquence 21:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to April 2003. --Eloquence 08:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, my compliments for the rewriting of circumcision. It´s eloquent and well-balanced. Thanks. Kosebamse 07:10 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ha! I arrive at your talk page to say ... pretty much exactly what Kosebamse just said ... and he has already said it. Thankyou for taking that difficult topic in hand and doing what appears to be (on the basis of a hurried inspection just now) an excellent job of it. Tannin

I would like to add that most of the article is indeed about the pros and cons of routine circumcision. I agree that it would be a good idea to split it up into a short article about circumcision as a medical procedure and a ritual practice; and another one about, say, routine circumcision in neonates. I don´t like to do it myself because I haven´t followed the discussions around the topic but I believe that it would be an, ehm, encyclopedic way of arranging these things. Kosebamse 08:45 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. That was a lot of work. Thankfully, there's a tremendous amount of information available on the web. I tried to be more inclusive of the pro-circumcision opinions, but what I found interesting is that these are rarely backed up, if at all. Even the penile cancer myth is perpetuated on virtually all pro-circ. sites, in spite of the efforts by the American Cancer Society to eliminate it.

If nobody else does it, I'll probably split away the entire "Medical analysis" section. I don't think there should be more than 2 articles (circumcision+medical analysis of circumcision) for the time being. --Eloquence 15:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Agree. The main article should, however, include a bit or two about the medical side so that the casual reader can get a comprehensive picture without digging too deep into the controversies. Kosebamse 17:32 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't philosophy supposed to be done in armchairs? Graft 15:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like armchair philosophy to me. In any case, a POV rant within an article is hardly acceptable. Different ideas need to be attributed and contrasted against each other. --Eloquence 15:15 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

POV rant? Was it really that bad? -- Evercat 22:05 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

It just looked a bit out of place. As soon as you write something like "However, this is not a serious problem .." you are probably in POV territory. Articles should be written so that almost everybody can agree with them because they provide different perspectives in attributed form. Also, discussing a complex subject like omniscience in a couple of sentences almost seems blasphemous ;-). Anyway, thanks for improving the original version, no offense intended. --Eloquence 22:16 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. OK. Does what I replaced it with seem OK now? The paradox thing was pretty trivial, to be honest, but the issue with free will is much more substantial. -- Evercat 22:19 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

My edits are my response. --Eloquence 22:29 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks, looks good. -- Evercat 22:30 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Re. your comments to SR: For what it's worth, there are other ways of looking at the practice of asking for help from a select number of contributors. After only a short time, it's not hard to tell who the contributors are that are the most productive to work with. I have a short list myself. They aren't people who agree with me, but people who can be relied on to do a little work thinking about my edits and are the most likely to make something more generally useful out of my work. I trust them not because they agree with me, but in retrospect working through their disagreements has brought about better results. Mkmcconn 18:12 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I can see that to apply in principle, but if you read Talk:Supernaturalization, it certainly looks a lot like the Internet variant of the old game of "Hey buddies, let's kick the newbie around" to me. In any case, sometimes it's hard to see the distinction between "productive to work with" and "convenient to get their support". This is why open forums are important.--Eloquence 18:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The strange fact is that, my short list is made up almost entirely of people who kicked me around as a newbie. Mkmcconn

Well, there we have it then. You are obviously a masochist. :-) --Eloquence 19:22 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

;-) I didn't say that all of my tormentors are on the list. Mkmcconn

E, I posted a detailed reply to your comment on my page, Slrubenstein

Re: Sonya L: [1] & [2]. 'Nuf said? -- John Owens 18:31 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The Black Widow connection is suspicious, but I am generally opposed to reverting users on principle. They should either be banned, or not be banned, but reverting perfectly good edits seems like a waste of effort to me. Furthermore, it is still possible that Sonya is not actually the same person as DW/Black Widow.--Eloquence

Hi Eloquence -- Thanks for your support over supernaturalization. I didn't realize RK was a theist too. I'll do my best to come up with some stuff for it -- e.g. there's a good experiment on the formation of "superstition" in pigeons by Skinner. Not that I like him or some of the applications of his ideas much. Jacquerie27 21:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Do have I the right to put anything I want on my own page? JohnQ

You cannot violate other people's copyrights, not even on your own page. See Wikipedia:Copyright. --Eloquence

lol! That was not really my point. I was not to put a link to the MP3 version of "American Life"!

That was a nice talk, wasn't it?! JohnQ

Not quite. Just try to play nice with others, familiarize yourself with our policies, and we will all get along. --Eloquence 19:02 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering, have you a software to edit pages? The date for instance, is added automatically or manually?

As I said, you should delve into our documentation. You can sign by typing ~~~ or ~~~~ (with timestamp). --Eloquence 19:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you! Marymary 19:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Erik,

I sent back that list of questions for that wiki article, with a set of answers. I hope I included enough soundbites for the article. lol ÉÍREman 05:06 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely! I knew I could count on you. Thanks a lot for your help. In part II I'm comparing Wikipedia with other encyclopedias and collaborative projects like Everything2 and H2G2, and understanding what makes people tick can be very enlightening. Regarding the phone bill, yeah, we had a similar situation with the Deutsche Telekom for a long time, but by now, flat fee access has become reasonably affordable. It's only a question of time, I guess -- but these monopolists tend to stick around and extract as much profit as they can. --Eloquence 05:11 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Sure is, Eloquence. I do it when there seems to be some question as to the bona fides of the new user. Once they have either a talk page or a user page, I can look at the edit history. Sometimes they turn out to be a vandal, and can be appropriately reverted, other times they turn out to be a perfectly good new contributor. If you know of an easy way to get to the edit history of a new user without doing this, let me know and I'll do it that way instead. Tannin

Ah yes, the same thing I said regarding the Talk page applies: Just follow the link to the non-existent page and you will see the "User contributions" link in the sidebar regardless. I implemented this some time ago to address the exact problem you describe. Try it on User:Bob O'Bob. --Eloquence 05:24 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ahh! I never looked in the side bar! It wasn't at the bottom of the page, so I thought it wasn't there. Thankyou! Tannin

If I can butt in here, my own reason I would do it, if I did, which I never have, would be so I can add it to my watchlist. That's one thing I'm pretty darn sure you can't do without creating something there first, though I wouldn't think it would even need a period, just a space should be adequate. -- John Owens 08:28 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Eloquence. Is there any reason for your moving of Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette to Wikipedia:Wikiquette? Does anyone else actually call it that? A "grep" of my saved mailing list e-mails suggests that "Wikipetiquette" is the more commonly used term among Wikipedians. In fact, "grep" turned up only three appearances of the word "Wikiquette", and all from the same person. I expect you know who that was... ;) -- Oliver P. 05:56 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

While Wikipetiquette is more common among Wikipedians (94 Google hits), wikiquette is used by other wikis as well, and a nice general term (384 Google hits). It is shorter and doesn't sound like petting. --Eloquence 06:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

That was absolutely adorable of you to create the Wikipedia:WikiLove. I was wondering who would do it, and in which delay! Please, just don't tell me you made it *only* for money, that would ruin the spirit.
You may pick up what you need of my offertory to pay yourself of your good deed. In the spirit of WikiLove, do not forget to leave some for other souls. Peace and Love. User:anthere

I'm honestly flattered that you suspected RK, Slrubenstein and myself of being members of a backroom alliance against criticism of religion. We've worked together on a number of religion related articles, it's true, but I think our private opinions have been at odds more than they've been in agreement. Try looking up some of the old archives of discussions under Christian antisemitism and religious pluralism for instance. Verses criticizing Jews in the New Testament is another, if I recall the title correctly. In the process of our strong disagreements though, we've learned how to discuss the most neutral way to present controversial material in a wikipedia article, without attacking each other personally or trying persuade each other to change beliefs. I think we've learned to work well together in that respect. I can assure you that we're not trying to tilt wikipedia or any articles in a common religious direction. I do appreciate your concern though, and welcome any suggestions you have for maintaining openness and neutrality. Thanks. Wesley 21:01 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

My concern was based on how you collectively responded to Jacquerie -- it looked very unfair and one-sided to me. But I consider that issue resolved now. Let's just use open forums like Wikipedia:Votes for NPOVing when dealing with problematic articles. --Eloquence 00:29 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, you had written "Both Wesley and RK are religious and, as such, likely to be opposed to religious-critical perspectives. You know that - this is why you repeatedly invited both to share their views on Supernaturalization, which you want removed. ..." I want you to know that I sensitive to your concerns; you may find this surprising, but I actually am a strong advocate of using historical-critical studies to analyze the development of religious texts...including the religious texts of my own faith. Not only do I accept the results of the documentary hypothesis as valid, but I accept that over time people have reinterpreted natural events as supernatural miracles. Granted, such a position would be considered heretical in most forms of classical Judaism, Christianity or Islam! However, I am not an adherent of what today would be called fundamentalist religion (in this case, Judaism), but instead hold to a liberal form of Judaism which maximizes scholarly inquiry, freethought, and humanism. The denomination to which I adhere (Conservative Judaism teaches that if God is a god of truth, then we are bound to seek out the truth using logic and science. If that means overturning some previously held dogma, then so be it. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei RK

Noted. Let's work together in making supernatural balanced and critical, then. --Eloquence 02:51 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Eek! Now I have to clean up my own messes!<G> -- Someone else 03:16 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Please take a peak at User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban. I think an administrator should take some action. MB 02:35 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Just curious; At what resolutions did the Main Page look ugly with the width spec? On my home Linux computer and work Windows computer there was no change at all at resolutions of 800 x 600 and higher while the only difference at sub 800 x 600 resolution was a horizontal scroll bar instead of a screwed-up Selected Articles table. I know horizontal scroll bars are bad but so are line breaks in between the different lines in the Selected Articles table. I have to fix this very often because Admins are inserting entries that overflow the line at 800 x 600. They are not doing this on purpose and the only reason they continue to do so is that it "looks good to them" since they have screen resolutions above 800 x 600. A width specification takes out the guess work and makes it easier to maintain the table in a state that looks good for the largest number of users. --mav

Could you please block ip 203.108.4.70. This person has commited multiple acts of vandalism. Thanks. MB 02:47 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Done. Just a few edits, though, should be unblocked in a few hours. --Eloquence

What is the policy on blocking vandals? Why should they be unblocked? MB 22:51 16 May 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that an IP address is usually dynamically assigned for each login, which means that another user may receive the same IP address as an earlier vandal and then be blocked from editing. We've had this in the past, so we try to avoid having specific IP addresses blocked forever. Usually blocking them for a couple of days is enough to scare them off. --Eloquence 23:23 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Erik, on Peyronie's disease, you removed the medical discliamer. I was under the impression that we should be puting those on all medical articles. Is there a talk page, or mailing list thread you could recommend on the discussion? Thanks --cprompt

We have no real policy on that (see Wikipedia:Policy). If an article details treatment procedures and so on, a disclaimer may be useful, but for the one above, I don't find it necessary. There's a boilerplate text at Wikipedia:Wikipedia medicine standards. If a disclaimer is added, it should be in normal font and color. --Eloquence 15:21 May 16, 2003 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind.

--cprompt

I guess he's back Eloquence. [3] -- sannse 11:00 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Banned. --Eloquence 11:33 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Eloquence. I think I have done that first sentence thing a few times, it was automatic, I'll try remember to follow the convention now that you have pointed it out to me. Regarding the two death dates in Tikhon of Moscow one is the Julian Calendar date. As you may not know the Russian Empire Russian Orthodox Church and maybe even the Soviet Union continued to use the O.S. at the time of his death (that is how it is sometimes written as in O.S. [Old Style]) dates up to the present. I put it there as it is significant to those who still follow the Julian Calendar for most religious observances. As it is relevant for those who wish to remember him in their prayers on the day he died (or "went to sleep in the Lord", I think is how most Orthodox Christian hagiographers put it) I wasn't sure how to mention it. Actually, I think you took out the N.S. date (it is usually the earlier as in December 25/January 7, for Christmas). I've put the O.S. date at the end of the article and changed the date reference to the last time he served a Divine Liturgy (I think it should be capitalized as it is the name of an official church act and it is capitalized when mentioned in regards to eastern Orthodoxy on the liturgy page, though I have also see it uncapitalized). — so many conventions to get right! BTW, why is it called eastern orthodoxy when the other parts of the Christian religion are not called western Protestant or western Catholic, is that really NPOV?, there should also be an entry on Eastern Catholic (the eastern rite) too and maybe even Western Orthodoxy like the Orthodox Church in America, i.e. about the Orthodox Church in the west. I'm only mentioning this as it seems very confusing and kind of oriented to western Europe as being the center of the world (something I am definitely for, but in fairness to the NPOV policy perhaps I should bring it up somewhere, but where? Thanks again for your help with Tikhon of Moscow (sorry if I am running on....) — Alex756 11:11 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Ich sprich' kleinen Deutsch. Ich werde Deutsch schriben versuchen. Bitte berichtig meine Fehler.

Warum schreibtest du der 'new pages' section(wie sagst du das) an die Main Page? LittleDan

Can we please stick to English? See Wikipedia talk:Selected Articles on the Main Page. --Eloquence 23:36 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Dear Eloquence: Hi, thanks for reading the Arturo Moreno article which I began writing. The thing there is that, he didnt help the comoany make 90 million a year or after ten years. He helped it make that amount of money in less than ten years after he was hired.

About my edits, I try for Wikipedia to keep its respectability and seriousness in informing people, by correcting my mistakes whenever I find one. Spelling wise Im not very good, and many times I find that Ive missed a letter or two while reading the articles Ive begun writing. Remember, a salesman with a better suit has a better chance of selling a product. An encyclopedia with a more serious look has a better chance of being an enjoyable way for people to learn.

thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours,

Antonio Tabloid Paper Character Martin

Hi Eloquence, concerning your offer at Wikipedia:WikiMoney.

"to support external editors via a helper application written in a script language of your choice, and possibly changes to the Wikipedia software, as described in [3]."

I have written a python library that let you load and save wikipedia texts. If you combine that with a script that checks the timestamp of the edited file it could be easily converted to something you are looking for (at least as far as I understand your request). BTW the library offers more than that, e.g., it can automatically check for copyright infringements (uses google API).

And I have some ideas how to merge things smarter, that means to solve a edit conflict in a nicer way by making use of diff/patch.

If you are interested in the lib/script (under development, but already useable) I can send it to you. --mkrohn 21:54 20 May 2003 (UTC)

If the helper script works and handles edit conflicts, please let me know. Adding the MIME file sending to the Wikipedia software should not be too much work (but is necessary to have the script directly launched from the browser). Of course, I would prefer this to be done in proper web service manner, with XML encapsulation and only the necessary data being sent .. I can dream, can't I? --Eloquence 12:33 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Message for you on User talk:Tim Starling. -- Tim Starling 04:57 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I added the bunker because all of the other buildings' links had similar information. Should I just remove all of the links in the StarCraft article and put the information in the main one?

Quickbeam 05:28 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I just noticed how big Wikipedia's StarCraft universe really is. Doing this properly would mean putting the information that is currently in list format into HTML tables on the respective race-pages (Terran etc.). For the time being, I would suggest that those articles which do not contain long list-like information should be merged into the main articles, like I did with bunker, and those which do can stay where they are. --Eloquence 05:30 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Erik, I'll defer to you in the HRE thing, but out of curiousity, has it alwas included deutscher nation? I ask because your dreaded German medievalists (at least the ones I've read) don't call it that so much. Do you know if this is a post 2nd Reich thing? I am not sure that it was called that when it was at its height -- I'll try to remember to check. J Hofmann Kemp

No, "Deutscher Nation" was added in the 15th century, I'm unable to locate a specific date (and the way these things go, any specific one is probably incorrect). --Eloquence 06:00 25 May 2003 (UTC)

aha! some modernism! blech. J Hofmann Kemp

(following over from the HRE talk page). Wasn't the term "Holy Roman Empire" itself coined in the 15th century? john 07:42 25 May 2003 (UTC)

According to [4], they started to call it Imperium Romanum in the 11th century, then Sacrum Imperium in the 12th, and finally Sacrom Romanorum Imperium in the 13th. --Eloquence 08:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Heh, I'm reminded of a time when I was in middle or high school, and our German class had a native German exchange teaching assistant visiting, who happened to also know Latin besides English and (of course) German. I'd also taken Latin before, and had an interest in the Holy Roman Empire, but nothing I'd read about the HRE had been in German. So, I asked him, in German, giving my best attempted literal translation but figuring they'd have their own way of saying it, what they called the "Heiliges Römisches Reich". To which, of course, he replied "das Heilige Römische Reich". And I say something like "yes, that's the translation of what we call it, but what do the native German speakers call it?" We went back and forth for a bit like that, before I finally realized that I'd translated it exactly right the first time, and he was telling me yes, that's what they call it, rather than asking me "what do you mean by Heiliges Römisches Reich?" -- John Owens 08:40 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I recall you having strong opinions re images of Rachel Corrie, and was wondering if you'd reviewed recent changes to that page? Martin

Argh, not again. I think the solution of having alternative media links below the images is best; IMHO all the images can stay. The problem with media: links is that they do not show the photo credits, though; you may try working with [[:image:foo.jpg|bar]] instead.---Eloquence 22:19 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Erik, I started a page on German grammar (I am studying German) and I'd appreciate it if you'd help me with it, since (I think) you are a native German speaker. LittleDan

I don't really have time to work on the article from the ground up, but let me know when you think it's finished and I'll go over it. --Eloquence 22:32 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Ok. Please respond on my userpage next time. LittleDan 23:12 26 May 2003 (UTC)

No -- I like to keep a complete record of conversations. See the top of this page. --Eloquence 23:18 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in working on the code for Wikipedia, but I can't get the PHP and mySQL and Apache stuff to work on my Windows computer (currently my linux computer is broken). If there were any way I could learn PHP and SQL otherwise, that would be great. LittleDan 23:12 26 May 2003 (UTC)

You can't really learn PHP and SQL without having them installed, IMHO. Learning by doing is always best. Just get your Linux machine working again -- what seems to be the problem? --Eloquence 23:18 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. of course it's all just moved elsewhere, and I may just give up again. Funny, though, when I did this exact same thing on Helga's pages (or on her Polish opponents' edits), no one seemed to mind. And of course, then, I was anti-German, not anti-French. Maybe we should call these guys the kings of Freedom??JHK

Perhaps Triton really is DW. In that case, he is already banned. Otherwise he probably will be soon if he keeps up this behavior. Now that many reasonable Wikipedians have taken note of the matter, I am sure that an acceptable compromise will be reached (although perhaps not acceptable to those who want the page to say in big fat latters Clovis is the first king of France, perhaps complemented by an animated coin showing his mug). In general, I try to edit pages according to the principle: Can a reasonable person who disagrees with me about the subject, but respects our NPOV policy, read this article and accept it as is? Kind of hard on pages like circumcision, where the evidence is fairly one-sided. --Eloquence 09:16 27 May 2003 (UTC)

If you think any of my conduct is inappropriate please point it out and define it accordingly. I suggest that, plus good manners, replace snide remarks and innuendo. Please also operate on a level standard of conduct and when Ms. Kemp calls another user "obtuse", a "misrepresenter", and a "liar", I am and was inclined to be upset. And, she then did it to me. Where were you then, ssir? I can't find a reprimand anywhere? Now, the issue on the List of French monarchs is not a game, a test of wits, or a dispute. It goes to the heart of Wikipedia's credibility. Now, you protect the page written in blantant non-NPOV filled with non-encyclopedic theories and childish statements. Now, Ms. Kemp has what she wents. I quote the following from your compatriot just in case you missed it:

Stan Shebs wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sun, 25 May 2003 17:36:18 -0400

Merovingians as not-French is definitely in the radical rethink category, and it may be a decade, or a generation, or even longer, before it comes to be generally accepted. Until then, trying to edit Wikipedia based on the assumption that the assertion is true is going to be hard; you're going against an army of editors who are backed by a horde of published authorities with reputations much higher than your own.

Stan

May I suggest you unprotect this page and allow the facts to be posted so that Wikipedia at a minimum does not contradict todays respected scholars based on some person's unproven theory. And, I will point out, so there is no doubt: there is no discussion or witings anywhereof any kind by any credible authority that attempts to deny/change or rethink that the Merovingians were not French. The only person who ever raised this issue was someone who logged in under the user name Ms. J. Hoffman-Kemp at www.wikipedia.org.

Thank you, your help is greatly appreciated. Triton

As I said, I have no opinion on who is right or wrong. I protected the page so that you could work out your differences in reasonable dialogue instead of flinging accusations at each other. I have seen Julie tone down her responses, I have not seen the same from you. Please read Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Here's what you should do: List your claims in the form of statement/sources. E.g. "Clovis I was French. Sources: ...." And not just titles, please, but actual quotes. It is very hard to infer any factual statement from a book title, for example. Do so in an unemotional manner, not accusative, but explanatory. People will not listen to you if you argue on a personal level, try to argue in a factual level only. Ask Julie et al. to do the same for her claims. Then suggest a compromise edit that would take into account this new data in an NPOV fashion.

On a different note, I would like to know who you are, and if you've previously worked on this project under a different user name. How about putting some personal information on your user page? Right now you're just the new kid, whereas Julie has been around basically since the start, so many people are protective towards her. How about introducing yourself? --Eloquence 17:26 27 May 2003 (UTC)

You wrote a comment saying you deleted the What is sport? article from the Votes for Deletion page, but I can't find where you moved it to, or why you took it off the VfD page. Help? -- Zoe

I moved that one to Talk:Sport. Couldn't use Move page because of the existing history, though. --Eloquence 03:29 28 May 2003 (UTC)

I finished up the pronoun chart on my German grammar page. please fix the errors. LittleDan

Re: Subpages. Glad to help out. I don't really hate them, but I need some mindless maintenance activity to do while I procrastinate about working on the Bjork/Temp article (which, incidentally, is itself a subpage, but I presume temporary ones are acceptable?) -- Wapcaplet 13:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I brought that up on the mailing list a couple of days ago and the consensus seems to be that they should be a subpage of the talk page, i.e. Talk:Björk/Temp. The problem with having them in the main namespace is

They will show up in searches, both in the text and title search.
They are not supported. You don't get a nice backlink to the main article. They are supported in the user and talk namespaces though.

--Eloquence 13:41 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Glaub es - oder nicht - wir wollten nur etwas mehr Geschmack in das Projekt bringen - in der deutschen Version ist fisting ja zum Glueck nicht so ugly - zumindest sind wir froh, dass Du uns nicht gebannt hast, zur Ehrenrettung unserer wikipedia

viel Glueck bei Deinen (Ihren) publizistischen Unternehmungen

Viking 15:37 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Nur Geduld, ich bin sicher, jemand wird in absehbarer Zeit auch für de: einen Artikel über Fisting schreiben. --Eloquence 15:41 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Das wird wohl so sein, aber er wird sicherlich keine direkten Anweisungen enthalten - herzliche Gruesse und vielen Dank fuer Ihre Toleranz - Ihr letztes copyedit wahr wohl noch "within limits"

Viking 14:05 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Please explain your policy on disambiguation pages, especially as far as Reed is concerned. It is very frustrating to work on something for hours and then see someone come along and change it again. KF 16:06 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Um, hours? Reed (disambiguation) is still there. The policy is as follows: Either create a page for the most common meaning with a link to a "foo (disambiguation)" which in turn links to less common names, or a page "foo" that is a disambiguation page and "bar (category)", "baz (category)", "bam (category)" etc.

Compare:

It makes no sense to have Reed as a redirect to Reed (disambiguation). If you want Reed to be a disambiguation page, then just move the content of Reed (disambiguation) there. --Eloquence 16:10 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Now everyone who reads about the plant (in all those national park articles etc.) and clicks on reed gets a definition of a part of a musical instrument. Does that make sense? The whole point was to show that the several meanings of the word are interrelated, starting with the basic meaning of course. But it has become my policy not to argue with other Wikipedians who state that something makes no sense rather than asking whether it does or doesn't. I may be a slow worker, but I thoroughly read the articles I'm editing and also those I'm creating links to. But as I said, I won't interfere with any of the reeds again. There are lots of other things to do here. --KF 16:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)

If you see any links to reed that should point to the plant, you should fix them. This was also the case before my edit. Also note that the Reed page prominently links to the disambiguation page. Sohat's your point? In any case, I'm happy with having reed as a disambig. page, but redirecting to a separate disambig. page is just pointless. --Eloquence 16:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean I should fix them? Not only do I question my obligation (whether moral or otherwise) to do so -- I actually did fix them by directing them to Reed (disambiguation). Has it escaped your notice that there is no article about reed plants yet? Anyway, let's stop this now: We agree to differ, but you're the one who decides, probably because you're still the one who knows what is pointless and what isn't while I'm still asking questions. All the best, KF 16:47 29 May 2003 (UTC)

All entries that point to Reed but should point to Reed (plant) need to be changed to do so, regardless of whether that page already exists or not. We create broken links all the time and quite deliberately. Normal articles should never link to disambiguation pages, that's why we have Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages in the first place. --Eloquence 16:56 29 May 2003 (UTC)

First Mr. User:Eloquence, sir, I have offered several times to Ms. Kemp to let bygones be bygones but she continues to demean me and others, and it is a pattern of behaviour continued since your differences. If you are telling me that it is proper to hurl abuses and demean me at Wikipedia please say so because I have not seen anyone advise Ms. Kemp of that. In fact it contradicts Wikipedia policy and Mr. Wales policy. If I am wrong say so and we will discuss this with Mr. Wales. Also, if you believe that I or any contributor should accept abuse as part of participating at Wikipedia please advise, if not help cool this situation and advise Ms. Kemp of your position on her behaviour. And, sir, I will not abandon my principles because one person says so.

Mr. User:Eloquence, sir, you perhaps missed the point here. There is no argument over the first French monarch. We had lots of references for that and we already agreed on the following from http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states: "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith."

Now, sir, the argument, which I cannot blame you for possibly missing in this massive file is rather minor. Perhaps you can resolve it. You stated, QUOTE:

Specifically, the quite nice table at the UCW website [2] calls these two separate eras "The Old Frankish Kingdom" and "The Kingdom of France". Please try to work towards a compromise that takes this distinction into account, instead of making no distinction between the Frankish rulers and those who followed.

If you say that this list titled France's Kings and Rulers from the University of Washington HIST112 Medieval & Renaissance Europe Winter 2003 as found at [5] showing the two kingdoms, should be exactly what we place on the List of French monarchs at Wikipedia as a compromise that takes this distinction into account, instead of making no distinction between the Frankish rulers and those who followed, then in the spirit of cooperation, I will accept this and post the information. Thank you sir, may the Prophet bless you. Triton 17:47 30 May 2003 (UTC)

You can't just copy and paste it, because it is not in the public ___domain. But I'd like to know something from you: Why do you think the UCW list only uses the term "Kingdom of France" starting with Capet? --Eloquence 01:46 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I was hoping that since you have experience with User:Viking, that you could provide some help. Please have a look at User talk:Viking/ban, and provide input/action. I have never felt attcked by another user as I do now, so I would like to ask you what you think the best thing to do about User:Viking would be? If you need to bring others into this, please do, but I would like some resolution. MB 19:49 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I'll respond on the talk page and on the list. --Eloquence 00:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi E. I just wanted you to know that my tirade is no longer on my webpage -- I replaced it with a comment about our being able to work together. I also really appreciate your attempts to handle the recent unpleasantness -- which is getting VERY unpleasant, if you take a look at the use activities in question. Nice to be back -- hmph! ;-)JHK

Thank you Julie, that was very nice. Yeah, we will probably disagree again on articles about major historical subjects (I promise I'll stay out of the specialized areas), but I've learned in the past months that it's important to make compromises, and that you're not really making one if you are not at least partially unhappy about the result. Since the unhappiness is increasingly being accomplished, I think a compromise is near on the monarchs page ;-). I wouldn't worry too much about Triton, the more he rants about how unfairly he is treated instead of focusing on the subject, the less seriously he will be taken. He seems to be smart enough to learn this, though. --Eloquence 00:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Are you still handling sysop status? I was nominated a while ago, but I hereby de-nominate myself. Please disregard it all. Evercat 01:02 31 May 2003 (UTC)

No problem, less work for me ;-). Any reason? --Eloquence 01:08 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well. I'm possibly not the right person to get into the sort of debates that a sysop probably must. I've not handled this Viking thing well, for instance. Evercat 01:10 31 May 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all people make mistakes, even sysops. Take a look at the horrible time-wasting nonsense I started over Occam's Razor. Granted, I wasn't a sysop at the time, but still... ;) --Dante Alighieri 01:12 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Or, if that doesn't do it for you, read up on the history of Christian views on witchcraft which used to be Exodus 22:18. For a while some people thought I was a troll or a raving lunatic. --Dante Alighieri 01:19 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry, sysops can't really break anything. Only developers can ban signed in users, and only with permission from Jimbo. Everything sysops can do can be reverted. --Eloquence 01:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Except deleting images. (which probably isn't important, but what they hey) Martin

That's not entirely what I mean. For my own peace of mind, I really don't want to get caught up in this sort of thing on a regular basis. But I will continue reverting vandalism and blanking gibberish pages (since there's never any guarantee a sysop will see them). Anyhow, I'd feel silly changing my mind at this point. :-) Evercat 01:21 31 May 2003 (UTC)

We should probably make you a sysop just because you don't want to be one, given the inverse relationship between desire for power and responsible actions ;-) --Eloquence 01:24 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Eloquence, sir, above you said: "Everything sysops can do can be reverted". If an article page is deleted can it be reverted? Thank you, sir. Triton 02:20 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Yup, pages can be undeleted. See also Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. --Eloquence 02:22 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi E -- I expect the page got unprotected too soon. It's sadly amusing that there can be several people looking at a big picture and trying make sure we have a corpus of articles that all work together, and one person who has pretty much stated his intention of distracting that work in order to continue to put forth an unsupportable viewpoint. <sigh> Oh well, thanks for all your attempts to help! JHK 16:43 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Ah heck with it. I feel much better today, and you've all talked me into it :-) so in fact I would accept sysop status. I don't know if you saw the messages - nomination, seconded, thirded. I don't follow the list too well, but I don't think there were objections. Evercat 17:21 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Um, I see there's still some controversy regarding my handling of Viking on the mailing list. If someone calls for me not to be a sysop, could you reverse my status again? I don't want it to be a controversial thing. Evercat 18:13 31 May 2003 (UTC)